Objections Header
Objections to Fuwanovel (and other FAQ questions)
I'll try to answer some questions here. I'll just update this section as I think of stuff.
Objection #1: “Some fan translators request that their patches not be distributed pre-patched with the game but this site distributes them pre-patched.”
It is hypocrisy that people who do not even care to seek permission from the original authors (before translating their work), can nevertheless turn around and stamp their feet at those who do things outside of permission. As soon as the words "respect my property" is uttered, it contradicts itself because unauthorized translation without prior contact and permission is breach of other people's property rights in other words "Yes I respect property rights, my own."
But this is an intellectual “property” (IP) issue. The fan translator believes she has a property right in this sufficiently elaborate piece of information. So yes I will be long-winded so that you don't have to read it. But the short answer is, can I force my audience of a thousand from re-telling the stories I have told them? Wouldn't such an ability obviously be a breach of their freedom of expression?
First of all, you need to understand what property even is. Legitimate property arose spontaneously as a means of justly determining the allocation of scarce resources among human beings. They arose because of the nature of scarce objects. They did not come about out of human design [see questioning intellectual property (scroll down to bottom)].
The nature of scarce objects
Where there are multiple human actors wanting the same scarce good (like a loaf of bread), there are only two ways to assign who gets to use the bread. Either 1) whoever is strongest and maims (or kills) all the other human actors gets to enjoy the bread, or 2) through property rights, i.e. the first person who baked it or procured it through market exchange gets to enjoy the bread.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe: “...To develop the concept of property, it is necessary for goods to be scarce, so that conflicts over the use of these goods can possibly arise. It is the function of property rights to avoid such possible clashes over the use of scarce resources by assigning rights of exclusive ownership.
So the fundamental social and ethical function of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict over scarce resources that could otherwise be avoidable.
However information is a non-scarce good
Information is not-scarce. I don't have to wait until you're done with the movie before I can play one. We press a button and we each have a movie each. If I modify my movie, it does not modify yours. If I copy yours, you don't have any less. It is as if by magic, the special properties of the movie allows for there to potentially be an infinite copies of itself available. What does it matter that you are using this movie? I will just conjure a new one. That is why there is no conflict in the use of information, hence no need for property rights. We don't have to guard the other from using our information. We can both use it at the same time. That is why the term “intellectual property” is an oxymoron, a nonsense word.
On the contrary, in the world of scarcity, if you ate my cake, I can't eat it anymore. Therefore I will defend my cake with a gun if you dare try to eat it. Intellectual property is the opposite. You are saying you will invade other people's use of their own cake with guns. You are saying you will invade other people's use of their own movie with guns.
However, you certainly have the right to keep your creation to yourself. If someone were to steal your copy, it would indeed be theft, and you would be entitled to compensation.
However, it is another matter entirely if you willfully release your creation to the world, and then try to tell others that they can’t use their own property and effort to make a copy, or try to improve on their copy and share those improvements. To deny them this implies that you have the right to restrict their use of their own property. If they continue to use their property as they choose, you are saying you will use the government to steal from them in the form of fines, and if they resist... then break their knee caps.

[Also see this article for a slightly different explanation.]